Physicists Are Philosophers, Too?

[The Pixie]

Leave aside the fact that hawking is engaging in philosophy who's death he has already announced, the inconsistency that BP and I are noting is the bootstrap conundrum. If "P" does not exist it cannot create "P". If "P" does exist then it cannot create "P"

I will add though that his nothing has properties and is not nothing and is another example of the need for philosophical rigor.

Hawking seems to use a different definition for "nothing" to philosophers. Who gets to decide which definition is the right one? Surely this is just semantics, and as long as the individual is clear what he means, that is good enough. To say an opponent is wrong because he is not using a word in a way that you have decided to use it is bad reasoning, and yet that seems to be what philosophers are doing here.

If philosophers have an objection to Hawking, the only valid one would seem to be that he is wrong because we have good reason to believe that there was a philosophical-nothing before the Big Bang, rather than a Hawking-nothing. Is that the case? If it is, that would certainly blow the thelogians out of the water, who posit an all-power, all-knowing intelligent being - pretty much the opposite of nothing.

[shunyadragon]

Firstly, I don't really think you're accurately describing Hawking's position, since we don't even know if there is such a thing as Quantum Gravity, let alone understand its causal influence on anything-- universes or otherwise.

However, more importantly, even if you are accurately describing Hawking's position, you said "No," then proceeded to say precisely the same thing that I had said. First, the "greater cosmos" exists, then the "Quantum world and Quantum Gravity" act as the origin for all possible universes.

Your conflating what science actually has evidence for with Hawking's philosophical view concerning the origins and the nature of the universe and all possible universes, concerning the Quantum World and Quantum Gravity.

Again the following summarizes Hawking's belief and philosophy concerning the origin of all possible universes and multiverses.

In simple terms, Hawking believes that our natural existence resulted from natural circumstances, and all possible universes, and multiverses originate from the Quantum World and Quantum Gravity naturally, and the existence of God is not necessary.

I haven't demanded anything. I've described the quality of Hawking's philosophical discourse. I don't demand that Hawking be a great philosopher any more than I demand that Shelly Kagan be a great physicist.

Ah . . . go back and read again. Jude and you are continually stubbornly asserting the literal meaning of Hawking's citation. You both, are judging Hawking's philosophy based on one citation, which is absurd, demanding that the interpretation be literal, when it does not reflect Hawking's world view that is reflected in his writings as whole.

You misunderstand. When I say his philosophy is poor, I'm not saying that his conclusions on cosmogony are therefore false. I'm simply commenting on the quality of his philosophical discourse.

Your moving the goal posts. When you say his philosophy is poor, you are saying his philosophy is poor. It is absurd to judge his philosophical discourse(?) based on one citation in a layman's publication without citing and understanding his more serious scientific work, which would be relevant to his philosophy.

As far as his philosophy, it is simply, he believes all of our physical existence has natural origins governed by Natural Laws, and God is not necessary.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, Hawking's view is that the greater (universe) cosmos exists as the Quantum world and Quantum Gravity exists from which all possible multi-verses and universes originate by Natural Law.

Firstly, I don't really think you're accurately describing Hawking's position, since we don't even know if there is such a thing as Quantum Gravity, let alone understand its causal influence on anything-- universes or otherwise.

However, more importantly, even if you are accurately describing Hawking's position, you said "No," then proceeded to say precisely the same thing that I had said. First, the "greater cosmos" exists, then the "Quantum world and Quantum Gravity" act as the origin for all possible universes.

Grow up, and please avoid demanding 'anal retentive' literal interpretations of citations such as these for layman audiences.

I haven't demanded anything. I've described the quality of Hawking's philosophical discourse. I don't demand that Hawking be a great philosopher any more than I demand that Shelly Kagan be a great physicist.

Many people including scientists describe science using analogies and symbolism in layman's language to describe things to the public. This does not reflect whether Hawking's philosophy is good, poor or indifferent. It is best to read Hawking's more specific scientific work to understand what Hawking believes concerning the origins of the universe.

You misunderstand. When I say his philosophy is poor, I'm not saying that his conclusions on cosmogony are therefore false. I'm simply commenting on the quality of his philosophical discourse.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, really.

Quantum mechanics are a description of the manner in which the universe works. Therefore, in order for the "quantum world" to naturally create anything, a universe which is described by that set of quantum mechanics must first exist.

No, Hawking's view is that the greater (universe) cosmos exists as the Quantum world and Quantum Gravity exists from which all possible multi-verses and universes originate by Natural Law.

So, if Hawking meant to say that the universe created itself, he is positing an incoherence. If he did not mean to say that the universe created itself, then he chose words with precisely the opposite meaning of his intention. Either way, it's reflective of pretty poor philosophy.

Grow up, and please avoid demanding 'anal retentive' literal interpretations of citations such as these for layman audiences. Many people including scientists describe science using analogies and symbolism in layman's language to describe things to the public. This does not reflect whether Hawking's philosophy is good, poor or indifferent. It is best to read Hawking's more specific scientific work to understand what Hawking believes concerning the origins of the universe.

In simple terms, Hawking believes that our natural existence resulted from natural circumstances, and all possible universes, and multiverses originate from the Quantum World and Quantum Gravity naturally, and the existence of God is not necessary.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Really???

Yes, really.

Again it is not literal 'create itself.' Quantum Gravity in the Quantum world naturally Creates muti-verses and universes naturally by Natural Law.

Quantum mechanics are a description of the manner in which the universe works. Therefore, in order for the "quantum world" to naturally create anything, a universe which is described by that set of quantum mechanics must first exist.

So, if Hawking meant to say that the universe created itself, he is positing an incoherence. If he did not mean to say that the universe created itself, then he chose words with precisely the opposite meaning of his intention. Either way, it's reflective of pretty poor philosophy.

[Jude]

Leave aside the fact that hawking is engaging in philosophy who's death he has already announced, the inconsistency that BP and I are noting is the bootstrap conundrum. If "P" does not exist it cannot create "P". If "P" does exist then it cannot create "P"

I will add though that his nothing has properties and is not nothing and is another example of the need for philosophical rigor.

Hee Haw

[shunyadragon]

Again, again, and again, the objection set forth by Jude (and which I reiterated) is not about the word "nothing," so the fact that he meant something different by its use than philosophers often mean is irrelevant.

Really???


Again it is not literal 'create itself.' Quantum Gravity in the Quantum world naturally Creates muti-verses and universes naturally by Natural Law.

Hawking believes: The Quantum World and Quantum Gravity (the scientific nothing) is the source of all of physical existence we see as universes based on Natural Law according to Hawking. If that does not explain it,

I have a two by four reserved for stubborn mules.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Again, again and again the nothing referred to by Hawking's invocation of "nothing" DOES NOT refer to an anthropomorphic universe creating itself from nothing (the philosophical/theological nothing).

Again, again, and again, the objection set forth by Jude (and which I reiterated) is not about the word "nothing," so the fact that he meant something different by its use than philosophers often mean is irrelevant.

[shunyadragon]

Jude wasn't objecting to Hawking's invocation of "nothing." He was objecting to the idea that something can create itself-- an objection which I share.

Again, again and again the nothing referred to by Hawking's invocation of "nothing" DOES NOT refer to an anthropomorphic universe creating itself from nothing (the philosophical/theological nothing).

The Quantum World (the scientific nothing) is the source of all of physical existence we see as universes based on Natural Law according to Hawking.

If that does not explain it, I have two by four reserved for stubborn mules.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I answered the question and you did not respond. The nothing you refer to in Hawking's quote is a scientific cosmology nothing, not the philosophy/theology nothing refer to in the concept of ex nihilo. Hawking is not a philosopher, but he does have a consistent philosophy concerning his science and belief system.

Jude wasn't objecting to Hawking's invocation of "nothing." He was objecting to the idea that something can create itself-- an objection which I share.

[shunyadragon]

Texting by phone so pls excuse brevity

The answer to your question is that as you note hawking is not a philosopher as shown by this quote of his. How does the universe create itself? Can it exist before it exists? Statements like this remind us poor philosophy even from the mouth of world class scientists is still poor philosophy. This after he announced earlier in the book that philosophy is dead.
So I agree with Lewis that philosophy brings a lot to the table if only to answer bad philosophy.

I answered the question and you did not respond. The nothing you refer to in Hawking's quote is a scientific cosmology nothing, not the philosophy/theology nothing refer to in the concept of ex nihilo. Hawking is not a philosopher, but he does have a consistent philosophy concerning his science and belief system.

[Jude]

Rightly or wrongly, I shall assume you are addressing the question I asked.

Hawking is a physicist, not a philosophy, so hardly a good example of what religion and philosophy have brought to the table. Meanwhile, your Lewis quote is not about our physical existence.

Texting by phone so pls excuse brevity

The answer to your question is that as you note hawking is not a philosopher as shown by this quote of his. How does the universe create itself? Can it exist before it exists? Statements like this remind us poor philosophy even from the mouth of world class scientists is still poor philosophy. This after he announced earlier in the book that philosophy is dead.
So I agree with Lewis that philosophy brings a lot to the table if only to answer bad philosophy.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. Shunyadragon said "Scientist in the twentieth century began to assert the philosophy and religion were outdated, and brought nothing to the table concerning the nature of our physical existence", and I am asking for evidence that that is not so.

Ah, cool. Sorry, I missed that in Shuny's post, originally. Now your question makes more sense.

Great, so you are in an excellent position to give some solid examples of what philosophy and religion brought to the table concerning the physical sciences. What have they told us about time? What have they told us about QM? I am not looking for a long list here, just a couple of specific examples.

On the nature of time, philosophy has shown that the intuitive picture of time which most people hold is far less likely to be true than the idea that all of time is co-extant, and that the future is just as real as the present or the past.

Interpretations of QM are a lovely area of philosophical research. The big problem with QM is that the mathematics is fairly simple and straightforward, but the implications of the mathematics are extremely perplexing. So, for example, if we were to apply Occam's Razor and follow the interpretation of QM with the fewest extraneous assumptions, we would be led to Everett's Many Worlds interpretation. If Many-Worlds is correct, then we are struck by a rather amazing bit of information about the physical world-- namely, that we exist as part of a multiverse.

Another interpretation of QM with extremely interesting consequences-- and my particular favorite interpretation-- is called Two State Vector Formalism. If TSVF is correct, then we are left with a rather startling conclusion: retrocausality. Just as events are informed by other things which occur previous to them in time (causality), TSVF shows that they are similarly affected by things which occur subsequently in time (retrocausality). The entire Aristotelian concept of Causation becomes turned inside-out, should TSVF be true.

Another fantastic example would be Non-Euclidean Geometry, which was thought to be nothing more than an interesting toy for philosophers and mathematicians, until 100 years ago when it inspired Einstein's discovery of General Relativity. If it wasn't for a handful of philosophers in the 19th Century doubting Euclid's Parallel Postulate, you wouldn't have a GPS, today.

[The Pixie]

You're asking a bit of a stilted question, here. You're basically asking, "What has philosophy and religion brought to the table concerning the physical sciences?"

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking. Shunyadragon said "Scientist in the twentieth century began to assert the philosophy and religion were outdated, and brought nothing to the table concerning the nature of our physical existence", and I am asking for evidence that that is not so.

Still, there are a number of areas where philosophy and science interact. Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics immediately come to mind. My personal favorite body of philosophical work from the past 100 years deals with the physical nature of time, and is best summarized by the work of philosopher G.J. Whitrow in his fantastic book, The Natural Philosophy of Time. There is a rather vibrant and active field of research known as Philosophy of Science which you might consider looking into.

Great, so you are in an excellent position to give some solid examples of what philosophy and religion brought to the table concerning the physical sciences. What have they told us about time? What have they told us about QM? I am not looking for a long list here, just a couple of specific examples.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Can you now answer the question? Can you (or anyone) give any examples of what philosophy and religion have brought to the table concerning the nature of our physical existence in the last 100 years?

You're asking a bit of a stilted question, here. You're basically asking, "What has philosophy and religion brought to the table concerning the physical sciences?"

Still, there are a number of areas where philosophy and science interact. Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics immediately come to mind. My personal favorite body of philosophical work from the past 100 years deals with the physical nature of time, and is best summarized by the work of philosopher G.J. Whitrow in his fantastic book, The Natural Philosophy of Time. There is a rather vibrant and active field of research known as Philosophy of Science which you might consider looking into.